Re: A very late suggestion (was; Re: [art] Back from leave)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On 2022-10-24, at 20:45, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> we add a third ART AD slot and add it as close to
> Right Now as possible. By the numbers alone and just dividing
> the number of WGs in the area by two, the ART ADs are
> responsible for more WGs than ADs in any other area.

there are other considerations of course, such as the number and length of documents produced, etc., not to speak of taking on other roles or tasks for the IESG.

I do like the suggestion to have some sort of community expectation on what a reasonable workload for an AD is, and what the relevant metrics could be.

I would want to point out though that growing the IESG does have a cost, because we expect all ADs to ballot on documents, and that means additional comments and potentially discusses. And a larger IESG has a larger management overhead and establishing consensus internally may become more difficult.

Thanks,
Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux